
CBI Files Fresh Case Against Ex-WAPCOS Engineer Over Hotel, Flight Favours
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a fresh case against former Water and Power Consultancy Services Limited (WAPCOS) deputy chief engineer Pankaj Dubey, alleging that he received undue favours, including hotel accommodation and air travel, from companies linked to a businessman whose firm had secured 10 Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) projects through the state-owned consultancy.
The FIR names Dubey, businessman Jigar Desai, Sheel Rydot and two companies Rydot Infotech Private Limited and Utkarsh Software Services for allegedly conspiring to provide illegal benefits to the public servant.
Dubey, a former deputy chief engineer and project manager with Water and Power Consultancy Services Limited (WAPCOS), was posted in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, from May 2020 to July 2025. During this period, an entity linked to Desai allegedly secured 10 JJM projects across Kangra, Mandi, Shimla, Sirmaur, Bilaspur, Chamba, Kullu, Solan, Una and Hamirpur districts.
According to the CBI, WhatsApp messages recovered from Dubey's phone showed that Sheel Rydot approached him regarding clearance of payments to Rydot Infotech. In one exchange, Rydot allegedly sought clearance of bills worth around ₹1 crore, to which Dubey reportedly responded that a substantial amount would be cleared before March 31.
The agency has also alleged that Dubey stayed at a five-star hotel in Bhubaneswar on 16 occasions between June 30, 2025, and February 9, 2026. The hotel bill, amounting to ₹8.31 lakh, was allegedly paid by Rydot Infotech and Utkarsh Software Services.
The CBI further alleged that Dubey asked Sheel Rydot to arrange a flight from Lucknow to Delhi and onward to Bhubaneswar. A ticket costing ₹12,300 was allegedly arranged for January 29.
Dubey was already facing investigation in another bribery case and was arrested on February 21 while allegedly accepting ₹10 lakh from an enterprise proprietor in Lucknow. The CBI filed a chargesheet in that case on April 20.
No immediate reaction was available from the accused.
